every settlement in North America, and was even "tolerated in Pennsylvania under the specious pretence of the religious instruction of the slave." In 1688 Francis Daniel Pastorius draughted a memorial against slavery, which was adopted by the Germantown Friends, and by them sent up to the Monthly Meeting, and thence to the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia. The original document was found by Nathan Kite of Philadelphia in 1844.3 It was a remarkable document, and the first protest against slavery issued by any religious body in America. Speaking of the slaves, Pastorius asks, “Have not these negroes as much right to fight for their freedom as you have to keep them slaves?" He believed the time would come, "When, from the gallery to the farthest seat, He regarded the "buying, selling, and holding men in slavery, as inconsistent with the christian religion." When his memorial came before the Yearly Meeting for action, it confessed itself "unprepared to act," and voted it "not proper then to give a positive judgment in the case." In 1696 the Yearly Meeting pronounced against the further importation of slaves, and adopted measures looking toward their moral improvement. George Keith, catching the holy inspiration of humanity, with a considerable following, denounced the institution of slavery "as contrary to the religion of Christ, the rights of man, and sound reason and policy."4 While these efforts were, to a certain extent, abortive, yet, nevertheless, the Society of the Friends made regulations for the better treatment of the enslaved Negroes. The sentiment thus created went far toward deterring the better class of citizens from purchasing slaves. To his broad and lofty sentiments of humanity, the pious William Penn sought to add the force of positive law. The published views of George Fox, given at Barbadoes in 1671, in his "Gospel Family Order, being a short discourse concerning the ordering of Families, both of Whites, Blacks, and Indians," had a salutary effect upon the mind of Penn. In 1700 1 Gordon's History of Penn., p. 114. 2 Whittier's Penn. Pilgrim, p. viii. 3 The memorial referred to was printed in extenso in The Friend, vol. xviii. No 16. • Minutes of Yearly Meeting, Watson's MS. Coll. Bettle's notices of N. S. Minutes, Penn. Hist. Soc. he proposed to the Council "the necessitie of a law [among others] about ye marriages of negroes." The bill was referred to a joint committee of both houses, and they brought in a bill "for regulating Negroes in their Morals and Marriages &c." It reached a second reading, and was lost. Penn regarded the teaching of Negroes the sanctity of the marriage relation as of the greatest importance to the colony, and the surest means of promoting pure morals. Upon what grounds it was rejected is not known. He presented, at the same session of the Assembly, another bill, which provided "for the better regulation of servants in this prov ince and territories." He desired the government of slaves to be prescribed and regulated by law, rather than by the capricious whims of masters. No servant was to be sold out of the Province without giving his consent, nor could he be assigned over except before a justice of the peace. It provided for a regular allowance to servants at the expiration of their time, and required them to serve five days extra for every day's absence from their master without the latter's assent. A penalty was fixed for concealing runaway slaves, and a reward offered for apprehending them. No free person was allowed to deal with servants, and justices and sheriffs were to be punished for neglecting their duties in the premises. In case a Negro was guilty of murder, he was tried by two justices, appointed by the governor, before six freeholders. The manner of procedure was prescribed, and the nature of the sentence and acquittal. Negroes were not allowed to carry a gun or other weapons. Not more than four were allowed together, upon pain of a severe flogging. An Act for raising revenue was passed, and a duty upon imported slaves was levied, in 1710. In 1711-12, an Act was passed "to prevent the importation of negroes and Indians" into the Province. A general petition for the emancipation of slaves by law was presented to the Legislature during this same year; but the wise law-makers replied, that "it was neither just nor convenient to set them at liberty." The bill passed on the 7th of June, 1712, but was disapproved by Great Britain, and was accordingly repealed by an Act of Queen Anne, Feb. 20, 1713. In 1714 and 1717, Acts were passed to check the importation of slaves. But the English government, instead of being touched by the philanthropic endeavors of the people of Colonial Rec., vol. i. pp. 598, 606. See also Votes of Assembly, vol. i. pp. 120-122. Pennsylvania, was seeking, for purposes of commercial trade and gain, to darken the continent with the victims of its avarice. Negroes had no political rights in the Province. Free Negroes were prohibited from entertaining Negro or Indian slaves, or trading with them. Masters were required, when manumitting slaves, to furnish security, as in the other colonies. Marriages between. the races were forbidden. Negroes were not allowed to be abroad after nine o'clock at night. In 1773 the Assembly passed "An Act making perpetual the Act entitled, An Act for laying a duty on negroes and mulatto slaves," etc., and added ten pounds to the duty. The colonists. did much to check the vile and inhuman traffic; but, having once obtained a hold, it did eat like a canker. It threw its dark shadow over personal and collective interests, and poisoned the springs of human kindness in many hearts. It was not alone hurtful to the slave it transformed and blackened character everywhere, and fascinated those who were anxious for riches beyond the power of moral discernment. Here, however, as in New Jersey, the Negro found the Quaker his practical friend; and his upper and better life received the pruning advice, refining and elevating influence, of a godly people. But intelligence in the slave was an occasion of offending, and prepared him to realize his deplorable situation. So to enlighten him was to excite in him a deep desire for liberty, and, not unlikely, a feeling of revenge toward his enslavers. So there was really danger in the method the guileless Friends adopted to ameliorate the condition of the slaves. When England began to breathe out threatenings against her contumacious dependencies in North America, the people of Pennsylvania began to reflect upon the probable outrages their Negroes would, in all probability, commit. They inferred that the Negroes would be their enemy because they were their slaves. This was the equitable findings of a guilty conscience. They did not dare expect less than the revengeful hate of the beings they had laid the yoke of bondage upon; and verily they found them. selves with "fears within, and fightings without." CHAPTER XXV. THE COLONY OF GEORGIA. 1732-1775. - GEORGIA ONCE INCLUDED IN THE TERRITORY OF CAROLINA. THE THIRTEENTH COLONY PLANTED IN NORTH AMERICA BY THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT. -SLAVES RULED OUT ALTOGETHER BY THE TRUSTEES. -THE OPINION OF GEN. Oglethorpe CONCERNING SLAVERY. — LONG AND BITTER DISCUSSION IN Regard to tHE ADMISSION OF SLAVERY INTO THE COLONY. - SLAVERY INTRODUCED. HISTORY OF SLAVERY IN GEORGIA. G EORGIA was once included in the territory of Carolina, and extended from the Savannah to the St. John's River. A corporate body, under the title of "The Trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia," was created by charter, bearing date of June 9, 1732. The life of their trust was for the space of twenty-one years. The rules by which the trustees sought to manage the infant were rather novel; but as a discussion of them would be irrelevant, mention can be made only of that part which related to slavery. Georgia was the last colony -the thirteenth- planted in North America by the English government. Special interest centred in it for several reasons, that will be explained farther on. The trustees ruled out slavery altogether. Gen. John Oglethorpe, a brilliant young English officer of gentle blood, the first governor of the colony, was identified with "the Royal African Company, which alone had the right of planting forts and trading on the coast of Africa." He said that "slavery is against the gospel, as well as the fundamental law of England. We refused, as trustees, to make a law permitting such a horrid crime." Another of the trustees, in a sermon preached on Sunday, Feb. 17, 1734, at St. George's Church, Hanover Square, London, declared, "Slavery, the misfortune, if not the dishonor, of other plantations, is absolutely proscribed. Let avarice defend it as it will, there is an honest reluctance in humanity against buying and selling, and regarding those of our own species as our wealth and possessions." Beautiful sentiments! Eloquent testimony against the crime of the ages! At first blush the student of history is apt to praise the sublime motives of the "trustees," in placing a restriction against the slave-trade. But the declaration of principles quoted above is not borne out by the facts of history. On this point Dr. Stevens, the historian of Georgia, observes, "Yet in the official publications of that body [the trustees], its inhibition is based only on political and prudential, and not on humane and liberal grounds; and even Oglethorpe owned a plantation and negroes near Parachucla in South Carolina, about forty miles above Savannah." To this reliable opinion is added : "The introduction of slaves was prohibited to the colony of Georgia for some years, not from motives of humanity, but for the reason it was encouraged elsewhere, to wit: the interest of the mother country. It was a favorite idea with the mother country,' to make Georgia a protecting barrier for the Carolinas, against the Spanish settlements south of her, and the principal Indian tribes to the west; to do this, a strong settlement of white men was sought to be built up, whose arms and interests would defend her northern plantations. The introduction of slaves was held to be unfavorable to this scheme, and hence its prohibition. During the time of the prohibition, Oglethorpe himself was a slave-holder in Carolina." 2 The reasons that led the trustees to prohibit slavery in the colony are put thus tersely : "Ist. Its expense; which the poor emigrant would be entirely unable to sustain, either in the first cost of a negro, or his subsequent keeping. 2d. Because it would induce idleness, and render labour degrading. 3d. Because the settlers, being freeholders of only fifty-acre lots, requiring but one or two extra hands for their cultivation, the German servants would be a third more profitable than the blacks. Upon the last original design I have mentioned, in planting this colony, they also based an argument against their admission, viz., that the cultivation of silk and wine, demanding skill and nicety, rather than strength and endurance of fatigue, the whites were better calculated for such labour than the negroes. These were the prominent arguments, drawn from the various considerations of internal and external policy, which influenced the Trustees in making this prohibition. Many of them, however, had but a temporary bearing; none stood the test of experience." 3 It is clear, then, that the founders of the colony of Georgia were not moved by the noblest impulses to prohibit slavery within. 1 Stephens's Journal, vol. iii. p. 281. |